I. Babi D’Souza v. Syndicate Bank [ILR (1986) KAR 900]

   High Court of Karnataka | 30.08.1985

Facts:

In this case, the Decree-Holder sued out the execution to recover the money from J. Dr. 2-revision petitioner, by attachment and sale of the occupancy rights conferred on the second J. Dr. by the Land Tribunal. J. Dr-2 resisted the petition contending that the occupancy rights conferred on him cannot be sold at all as per Section 61 of the Land Reforms Act. The Trial Court over-ruled the objections of J Dr. 2-revision petitioner. Hence, the revision.

Observations:

Once the occupancy rights are conferred on the tenant as a result of an enquiry under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and once a certificate under Section 55 is issued, the land ceases to be vested in the State Government and the tenant becomes the full owner thereof. Once the occupancy rights have been conferred on the tenant, the occupancy rights so conferred would amount to an interest in the property.

The Court observed that on a perusal of Section 61(1) (2) and (3) it becomes crystal clear that a person on whom the occupancy rights were conferred, has got an interest in the land. Section 61(1) does not prohibit sale by an order of the Court in execution proceedings.

The occupancy rights conferred on a person after an enquiry conducted under Section 48A, would amount to an interest held by such a person in the land. There is nothing either in Section 61 or any other provision of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act prohibiting the Civil Court from attaching and selling of such an interest in the execution of a decree. 

II. Ratan Lal and Anr v. S.B.B.J. and Ors [ (2004) 1 RLW 306 (RAJ) ]

   High Court of Rajasthan | 10.07.2003

Facts:

In the said case, the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 Bank obtained a decree for Rs. 72,079/- on 16th Dec., 1978. The execution petition was filed for recovery of the said amount by sale of the mortgaged property by the decree holder non-petitioner No. 1. In the execution petition, the judgment-debtor submitted an application raising objection that since, the property mortgaged is an agriculture land, therefore, it cannot be put to auction and there is bar against the attachment and sale of the agriculture land. 

Observations:

The Executing Court observed that there is no provision in the CPC, which puts bar against attachment and sale of agriculture land. Special provisions for sale of agriculture produce has been given in Order 21 Rules 74 & 75 CPC. 

The High Court observed that it is clear from a bare reading of the Sub-clause (c) of the proviso to Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code that the agriculture land has not been excluded by this provision from the attachment and sale in execution of a decree. Only houses and other buildings of an agriculturist have been saved from the attachment along with land immediately appurtenant to the houses and buildings, which are necessary for their enjoyment, which are belonging to an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant and occupied by him. The legislature specifically has not included the agriculture land, in this provision, to exclude the agriculture land from the provision of attachment and sale of the property in execution of a decree, therefore, this exclusion indicate that the law framers were conscious that an agriculturist may not be made homeless and therefore, specific provision has been made to exclude only home of agriculturist, but has not excluded agriculture land. We cannot insert the words “agriculture land” in the Sub-clause (c) of the proviso to Section 60. 

****

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment